User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Hobbs v. Fogg

Thanks for your comments, and especially pointing out that text from an 1837 legal decision is not copyrighted.

As to the existing reference, the commentary on that website surrounding Gibson's letter to Jefferson (not the letter itself) is the source of Gibson "maintaining a generally restrictive view of judicial authority".

There are few if any published articles about this case. That's why there aren't more citations. I didn't want to pull in tangential references. It is a significant one of Gibson's opinions, I think, but if you still think it should be deleted, then I won't contest it.

AnEaragail (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@AnEaragail:

1. I don't think the draft should be deleted; bear in mind that I declined a deletion nomination for it. As far as I am concerned, I see no reason why the draft shouldn't be accepted if the lack of sourcing can be dealt with.
2. Yes, I understand that the letter from Gibson is a reference for his view of judicial authority, rather than for the particular case, but we do also need citations to sources about the case itself.
3. Although Wikipedia's notability requirements are based on good principles, I am not a great fan of the some of the ways they work in practice. It seems to me that this is a significant and interesting case, and it would be reasonable to have an article about it. However, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage in reluable published sources. Your statement "There are few if any published articles about this case" suggests that there may not be much coverage, in which case the case may not satisfy those guidelines. However, you must have got the information from somewhere, so can you say where? Wherever it was, it is at least one source that can be cited, assuming that it's a reliable source. JBW (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   I will do some more in-depth searching in the legal literature for references to the case. Thanks again for your comments. If I can find useful references I will add them and hit the resubmit button. AnEaragail (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I resubmitted the draft with additional support. The article has been beefed up, so I hope you will find it acceptable to publish now. Thanks JBW.

AnEaragail (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandr Agapitov moved to draftspace

Heyy! I moved the Aleksandr Agapitov article back to draft per the talk. Notifying with a message as a courtesy as you tagged this article for PROD deletion. This can go through AfC again, and I guess it resets the PROD counter as to not appear as a way to 'bypass' the deletion process. Any issues let me know! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@OXYLYPSE: I think under the circumstances what you did was the best thing to do. I see that the creator of the article has contested the PROD, and so, even though she was reluctant to remove the PROD notice herself, I don't think a PROD deletion would have been right. Well, if the sourcing is improved, I'll be happy to see the article rescued, though I'm afraid I don't think that's likely to happen. Thanks for letting me know what you've done. JBW (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

About your block of 121.218.12.208

Seems they brought a flock of ducks. Every disruptive IPv4 at Billy the Cat (TV series) over the past two months is from Australia.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked 49.186.0.0/17, 49.180.0.0/16, & 49.179.64.0/18 from that article. If you know of any other IP addresses that should be added that I've missed, let me know. JBW (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, will let you know if I see related IPs while patrolling. Or if any of these start becoming a problem on other pages.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Partial block request

Hi, JB, would you mind blocking 70.62.124.152 from editing WCPE? That IP is registered to the station. There's also an IPv6 range from Indiana which has been disrupting the article but they haven't edited in a little over a month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that caused the registered editor to come out of the woodwork.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As you have probably seen, I've partially blocked the IP address from the article, and totally blocked the account.

24.163.117.3 has made only a couple of edits, and those aren't recent, but they look suspiciously similar to editing by the account & IP address that I've blocked, so who knows whether it may now wake up?

The IPv6 range you mention must be 2600:1700:8C28:A310:F9F8:4DBD:39CB:70DE/64, which has an extensive history of editing on numerous articles about radio stations. From a quick glance, it looks as though their editing may not be very constructive, but I haven't studied the editing history in depth, and in the small amount of checking that I did, I didn't see enough to justify taking any action. Of course, though, if you have seen more significant problems then you are welcome to give me a few diffs & I'll consider them. JBW (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the article to my watchlist in case 24.163.117.3 or any other problems shows up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your sandbox

Hello,

This is regarding my edit to your sandbox, and your revert. Your page wasn't transcluding a template as you suggested in your edit summary (though I assume you substed a template), it was directly adding the category Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. You are correct in saying that WP:USERNOCAT only applies to content categories, and I was perhaps a bit lazy in simply referncing that instead of giving a full reasoning. Regardless of the fact that the aforementioned category isn't a content category, there is no reason to have it manually added, and it simply pollutes a tracking category that should be empty. I would appreciate it if you would remove said category from the page. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eejit43: I have carefully re-read my edit summary, and I can't understand what about it you thought "suggested" that the page was "transcluding a template"; I didn't mention transclusion. I did indeed subst a template, which produced a result which was not what I wanted. I did not know that a side effect of that would be to add the page to a clearup category; had I known that then of course I would have removed it. As I indicated in my edit summary, the whole thing came about because I was attempting to use a template in a namespace where it doesn't work; there isn't any good reason to keep the resulting unwanted message, so I will delete it. However, I offer you the following thoughts on how you have gone about achieving this outcome, and how else you might have done so.

There are several ways that it could have been dealt with, including: informing me, and asking me to make the change; making the change yourself, and immediately posting to my talk page explaining why, and perhaps acknowledging that you had presumed to edit a page in my userspace; making the change yourself, with an edit summary which acknowledged that you were editing in my user space, and briefly indicating why, perhaps then following it with a note on my talk page about it. I can also think of several better ways of phrasing your request here than "I would appreciate it if you would remove said category from the page", but never mind. As I said, I'll delete it, and there can then be smiles all round. ☺ ☺ JBW (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Apologies for informing you before making the change, I assumed it was a simple enough change to make without doing so. Have a nice rest of your day. :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)